1. The study starts with a distinction of three dimensions of comparative law, an analytical, an empirical and a normative dimension. This distinction lays the foundation for the rest of the study. 2. It then introduces the principles method of comparative law. Comparative legal principles, it is held, have to comply with four criteria: they have to be functional, positive, general and potentially universal. The intention behind introducing the concept of comparative legal principles is to improve the practicability of comparative law. It is also intended to avoid the "universalistic fallacy" which is often found in comparative law. Examples for the universalistic fallacy are identified with Rabel's "general principles", Esser's "universal principles" or Schlesinger's "common core". Contrary to these concepts legal principles are understood in this study as mere analytical tools. 3. The next tool for the ensuing comparison of this study is identified in normative criteria. It is shown that the analytical principles can be evaluated on the basis of the micro- and macroeconomic functions of security. As the most important function the risk-reducing function of security is identified. Other microeconomic functions of security are the function to provide information about the debtor and the prevention of risk shifting. In addition, the study points out the macroeconomic importance of security (which supports lending and investment in an economy and assists in the efficient allocation of resources in an economy). 4. On the basis of the principles method of comparative law and the normative principles a number of functional principles of security law are described which show the understanding of secured debt and charged property in several legal systems. The study describes legal concepts which are developed from specific legal issues and which are evaluated on the basis of normative criteria. The present study demonstrates that the principles method can lead to specific, practical results.